The Climate thread

[High Plains Drifter 11192]

10 hours ago, elfenix said:

More grabbing mother Earth by the pussy

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2019/08/29/trump-administration-reverse-limits-methane-powerful-greenhouse-gas/

 

 

Anyone who has flown over west Texas at night knows that "every incentive" must not be much.

 

At least those flames are burning it off at the source before its released into the air, because its not financially worth it to capture it. I believe this is more about leakage from pipelines and such. The cost of preventing the methane leakage is more than its worth. During certain times of the year, they can't even sell it at a loss. There is zero incentive.

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20945]

It's hard to see how something that cows fart in vast quantities will ever have much value.

[GSU&UT 1799]

4 hours ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

It's hard to see how something that cows fart in vast quantities will ever have much value.

Is this sarcasm? My company monitors and installed the gens at a landfill that was capped and uses the methane to operate the gens that powers some of the county's grid.

[Bateshorn 9991]

Well,  methane is 25 times as powerful of a GHG as CO2,  so converting the CH4 into CO2 via flaring is relatively more climate benign. 

[GSU&UT 1799]

nm

Edited August 30, 2019 by GSU&UT

[Biff Tannen 46190]

22 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

I thought I'd follow up on this, because it seems a ripe issue for disinformation and confusion. Carbon from fossil fuels has been largely removed from the carbon cycle for hundreds of millions of years. And it all came from a time when the Earth was hotter, had more plant life, and larger animals. It isn't new to the earth, but reinserting it into the carbon cycle now is going to change the current equilibrium. And doing so all at once (geologically speaking) is having/will have dramatic effects on planet. Over time the Earth will find a new equilibrium (well, unless the change is too dramatic and life can't adjust quickly enough). But getting there isn't going to be very nice for us at all. 

This is really the core issue that people seem to not understand.  Well put.

[Dahobbs 18345]

18 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

What an idiotic policy.  We need to tighten restrictions and monitoring on methane leaks, not loosen them.  There is no economic incentive to identify and fix relatively small fugitive leaks & emissions of methane, but those leaks will contribute to the rise in atmospheric methane, which is much more problematic than an equivalent ppm rise of CO2.  Industry is not going to fix these relativity small leaks on their own (from production fields, valves, seals, and the thousands of joints along the path from field to use); they won't even bother to identity them.  We need NG for power gen and ammonia production for the foreseeable future, but we have to be responsible with it.    

What's interesting is that the big players are against this policy change because they've already invested money to comply with the previous regulations. It also allows them to continue to market NG as a "clean" solution. Changing the policy now basically puts them at an economic disadvantage to all the companies that haven't bothered to pay for the equipment required to address the leaks. 

 

Larger energy companies have invested millions of dollars to promote natural gas as a cleaner option than coal in the nation’s power plants, because natural gas produces about half as much carbon dioxide when burned. They fear that unrestricted leaks of methane could undermine that marketing message, hurting demand.

Exxon wrote to the E.P.A. last year urging the agency to maintain core elements of the Obama-era policy. And earlier this year, Gretchen Watkins, the United States chairwoman for Shell, said the E.P.A. should impose rules “that will both regulate existing methane emissions but also future methane emissions.”

Susan Dio, the chairwoman and president of BP America, wrote an op-ed article in March saying that regulating methane is the “right thing to do for the planet” and for the natural gas industry. “To maximize the climate benefits of gas — and meet the dual challenge of producing more energy with fewer emissions — we need to address its Achilles’ heel and eliminate methane emissions,” she wrote.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/29/climate/epa-methane-greenhouse-gas.html

 

[zork 629]

On 8/28/2019 at 6:00 PM, Dahobbs said:

[snip]

All your other nonsense is based on extremely flawed premises:

(1) that CO2 exhaled from our lungs represents substantial part of the global increase within the last ~200 years. This is simply not true, it accounts for 0% of the global increase.  This is because everything that we inhale and exhale is already part of the carbon cycle for the planet. We (and other animals) consume plants (containing delicious carbon).  The carbon in the CO2 that we exhale comes from our food.  Plants absorb that CO2, adding the carbon to their biomass and releasing oxygen. We (and other animals) then consume the plants, starting the process anew. All that carbon was already accounted for, none of it is new. The current problem with CO2 build up is due to the NEW carbon that is being released into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels. Maybe look at any fucking science at all for references on the above. 

 

So does it explain cow farts or human farts as well?  Is that new carbon in the methane or part of your 0% of global increase reference?  So no tax to be considered then, on cow or human farts?(inputting the expanse of humanity that farts from kimchi, and other veggie eaters where the big populations are in the East, Far East)

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/17/dairy-farmers-in-california-say-anti-flatulence-law-stinks.html

etc:

https://www.google.com/search?q=tax+on+cow+methane&rlz=1C1CHBD_enUS773US773&oq=tax+on+cow+methane&aqs=chrome..69i57.6350j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Edited August 30, 2019 by zork

[Dahobbs 18345]

15 minutes ago, zork said:

So does it explain cow farts or human farts as well?  Is that new carbon in the methane or part of your 0% of global increase reference?  So no tax to be considered then, on cow or human farts?(inputting the expanse of humanity that farts from kimchi, and other veggie eaters where the big populations are in the East, Far East)

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/17/dairy-farmers-in-california-say-anti-flatulence-law-stinks.html

etc:

https://www.google.com/search?q=tax+on+cow+methane&rlz=1C1CHBD_enUS773US773&oq=tax+on+cow+methane&aqs=chrome..69i57.6350j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

According to NASA it is actually cow burps, not farts, that produce large quantities of methane. https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/33/which-is-a-bigger-methane-source-cow-belching-or-cow-flatulence/

And, yes, to answer your question. But, methane is an interesting problem in general. It is a stronger greenhouse gas, but its effect only last 10 years. CO2's effect lasts 100 times longer.  So, in the short term, having more cows as a relative percentage of life on earth, would have a warming effect. While nothing new is being added to the carbon cycle, the particular output is a more potent greenhouse gas for a short amount of time. Over long periods though I would guess it averages out. 

Again, the question isn't whether cows contribute to the total amount of greenhouse gases. Of course they do, just like pretty much every other animal. The question is whether they are responsible for the overall increase we have seen over the last 200 years. And the answer is no. Fossil fuels are responsible for that. 

[High Plains Drifter 11192]

3 hours ago, Bateshorn said:

Well,  methane is 25 times as powerful of a GHG as CO2,  so converting the CH4 into CO2 via flaring is relatively more climate benign. 

 

The methane will decompose into CO2 eventually anyway, but yes, you are correct. Until it does decompose it is far worse than CO2.

 

 

 

 

 

[zork 629]

11 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

According to NASA it is actually cow burps, not farts, that produce large quantities of methane. https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/33/which-is-a-bigger-methane-source-cow-belching-or-cow-flatulence/

And, yes, to answer your question. But, methane is an interesting problem in general. It is a stronger greenhouse gas, but its effect only last 10 years. CO2's effect lasts 100 times longer.  So, in the short term, having more cows as a relative percentage of life on earth, would have a warming effect. While nothing new is being added to the carbon cycle, the particular output is a more potent greenhouse gas for a short amount of time. Over long periods though I would guess it averages out. 

Again, the question isn't whether cows contribute to the total amount of greenhouse gases. Of course they do, just like pretty much every other animal. The question is whether they are responsible for the overall increase we have seen over the last 200 years. And the answer is no. Fossil fuels are responsible for that. 

so is the CA law referenced in the cnbc link something you favor and would like to see expanded to all cow producing areas or not a thing because it is not new carbon, while still having potentially short term effects for the local areas?  Or possibly local methane production is not a concern, only totals in the aggregate of cow burping worldwide?

 

Do we need to stop composting as well due to methane production(being then broken down into CO2), logical extension of the last couple sentences of your burp/fart link?  Maybe a tax/fee/penalty/jail on composting, settling ponds, lagoons, and manure processors is in order to reduce that behavior? /s

Edited August 30, 2019 by zork

[High Plains Drifter 11192]

concern troll is concerned.

[Biff Tannen 46190]

If we deliver to you, then what? Eighty-fifth Street, Wall Street, Mexico, Eighty-fourth Street?

[zork 629]

4 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

concern troll is concerned.

looks like there has been a significant increase in cows worldwide since 1960:

34% increase from 1960 to 2017.

https://beef2live.com/story-world-cattle-inventory-1960-2014-130-111523

Edited August 30, 2019 by zork

[Dahobbs 18345]

9 minutes ago, zork said:

so is the CA law referenced in the cnbc link something you favor and would like to see expanded to all cow producing areas or not a thing because it is not new carbon, while still having potentially short term effects for the local areas?  Or possibly local methane production is not a concern, only totals in the aggregate of cow burping worldwide?

Do we need to stop composting as well due to methane production(being then broken down into CO2), logical extension of the last couple sentences of your burp/fart link?  Maybe a tax/fee/penalty/jail on composting, settling ponds, lagoons, and manure processors is in order to reduce that behavior? /s

In the short term I suppose curbing methane emissions from cows could buy us more time to deal with the real problem, fossil fuel use. But my preference would be to just address the actual problem.

Other than being willfully dumb, I'm not sure what point your posts have. 

[zork 629]

10 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

In the short term I suppose curbing methane emissions from cows could buy us more time to deal with the real problem, fossil fuel use. But my preference would be to just address the actual problem.

Other than being willfully dumb, I'm not sure what point your posts have. 

Quote

Methane is a potent greenhouse gas. Although it remains in the atmosphere for a shorter time than carbon dioxide, it has a warming potential 34 percent higher than that of carbon dioxide. According the Environmental Defense Fund, methane is responsible for around 25 percent of manmade global warming.

https://m.phys.org/news/2019-01-scientists-breathalyze-cows-methane-emissions.html

 

Concern about 25% of manmade global warming is dumb?  Or no big deal?  I had not realized till today that cows were producing that much, or having that much effect.  Seems like an easy solution to start cutting down the cow population, and a tasty solution btw, to bring that 25% percentage down(wrt cows as a percentage of the 25% total).

Edited August 30, 2019 by zork
added the last part since cows aren't the total source of methane of course

[Lurch 5950]

Reducing cattle or developing technologies to reduce their impact is definitely a part of a multifaceted solution.

[Dahobbs 18345]

19 minutes ago, zork said:

https://m.phys.org/news/2019-01-scientists-breathalyze-cows-methane-emissions.html

 

Concern about 25% of manmade global warming is dumb?  Or no big deal?  I had not realized till today that cows were producing that much, or having that much effect.  Seems like an easy solution to start cutting down the cow population, and a tasty solution btw, to bring that 25% percentage down(wrt cows as a percentage of the 25% total).

You correctly identified that cows aren't the sole (or even largest) source of methane. I'm also skeptical of calling them man-made, as methane burping creatures existed, and existed in numbers, prior to humans getting involved. Maybe we've increased their relative numbers, although I'd need to see some data supporting that considering how many others we've killed.  And, usually the methane numbers associated with farming/cows also include fossil fuel related releases. Again, reducing the number of cows will definitely reduce, at least in the short term, the amount of greenhouse gases. That can help buy us time to address the fossil fuel problem.  But I'm not convinced that over the longer term they won't just be replaced by other life forms.  

Edited August 30, 2019 by Dahobbs

[zork 629]

4 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

You correctly identified that cows aren't the sole (or even largest) source of methane. I'm also skeptical of calling them man-made, as methane burping creatures existed, and existed in numbers, prior to humans getting involved. Maybe we've increased their relative numbers, although I'd need to see some data supporting that considering how many others we've killed.  And, usually the methane numbers associated with farming/cows also include fossil fuel related releases. Again, reducing the number of cows will definitely reduce, at least in the short term, the amount of greenhouse gases. That can help buy us time to address the fossil fuel problem.  But I'm not convinced that over the longer term they won't just be replaced by other life forms.  

Quote

According to the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization, livestock — including cows, pigs, sheep and other animals — are responsible for about 14.5 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. ... And with an estimated 1.3 to 1.5 billion cows on the planet, that's a whole lot of methane.

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C2CHBD_enUS773US774&source=hp&ei=RF5pXev2Ds7s_QajiKjYCA&q=cows+as+a+percentage+of+worldwide+methane&oq=cows+as+a+percentage+of+worldwide+met&gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.33i22i29i30l2.1022.9483..12322...0.0..1.319.5329.1j34j1j1......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i324j0i131j0j0i3j0i22i30j0i22i10i30j33i299j33i160.JDyUFAvHmgA

How do we get India, Brazil, China, to join us in our animal destruction/binge eating to save the planet(right now)? 

[ruitxn 299]

1 hour ago, zork said:

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C2CHBD_enUS773US774&source=hp&ei=RF5pXev2Ds7s_QajiKjYCA&q=cows+as+a+percentage+of+worldwide+methane&oq=cows+as+a+percentage+of+worldwide+met&gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.33i22i29i30l2.1022.9483..12322...0.0..1.319.5329.1j34j1j1......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i324j0i131j0j0i3j0i22i30j0i22i10i30j33i299j33i160.JDyUFAvHmgA

How do we get India, Brazil, China, to join us in our animal destruction/binge eating to save the planet(right now)? 

Yes that is right, it will really be hard. So probably the best solution is to just do nothing and turn our back on any proposed data driven proposals.

[Biff Tannen 46190]

4 minutes ago, ruitxn said:

Yes that is right, it will really be hard. So probably the best solution is to just do nothing and turn our back on any proposed data driven proposals.

And this is why I think we are fucked.  Yes, it will be hard if we really want to fix it.  No one wants to actually put in the effort it will take.  We are going to be relegated to dealing with the after effects as best we can.  People are going to die and it won't be pretty.  Such is life I guess.

[Bateshorn 9991]

2 hours ago, zork said:

looks like there has been a significant increase in cows worldwide since 1960:

34% increase from 1960 to 2017.

https://beef2live.com/story-world-cattle-inventory-1960-2014-130-111523

Well,  much of the Amazonia deforestation is related to the expansion of cattle ranching.  So you get a threefer:  the destruction of a major living carbon sink, the contemporaneous release of previously sunk carbon, and a new source of GHG production.  

[EuroHorn 3295]

2 hours ago, zork said:

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C2CHBD_enUS773US774&source=hp&ei=RF5pXev2Ds7s_QajiKjYCA&q=cows+as+a+percentage+of+worldwide+methane&oq=cows+as+a+percentage+of+worldwide+met&gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.33i22i29i30l2.1022.9483..12322...0.0..1.319.5329.1j34j1j1......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i324j0i131j0j0i3j0i22i30j0i22i10i30j33i299j33i160.JDyUFAvHmgA

How do we get India, Brazil, China, to join us in our animal destruction/binge eating to save the planet(right now)? 

Massive barbecues.  I’ll bring the charcoal 

[Lurch 5950]

I see we’ve moved to the “it’s too hard so we shouldn’t try” phase of the discussion

[zork 629]

16 minutes ago, Lurch said:

I see we’ve moved to the “it’s too hard so we shouldn’t try” phase of the discussion

Hasn't the USA bent the curve on CO2?  Who says we aren't trying?  Hasn't there been a 30% federal kickback on virtually all solar/renewable energy installations going back more than a decade?(not sure what year it started but it was happening under W and since, IIRC)  Incentive based solutions can work.

Are you going to expect India to kill their livestock?  Stop using coal?  How about China?

Why not spend all the climate money or 95% of it on solutions for humans to live in all types of climate instead of arguing on how many degrees we are going to warm or cool?  How to turn CO2 into carbon products that might be useful or just benign storage in a way that is scale-able and cheap?  Less about control, less about taking from the people in taxes, and more/virtually all about solutions.

Thanks to @Dahobbs for the discussion/input today.  I learned some from him and from my google searches inspired by his knowledge.  (For one that cow population of the world chart is staggering from India/Brazil)

[Dahobbs 18345]

1 hour ago, zork said:

Hasn't the USA bent the curve on CO2?  Who says we aren't trying?  Hasn't there been a 30% federal kickback on virtually all solar/renewable energy installations going back more than a decade?(not sure what year it started but it was happening under W and since, IIRC)  Incentive based solutions can work.

Are you going to expect India to kill their livestock?  Stop using coal?  How about China?

Why not spend all the climate money or 95% of it on solutions for humans to live in all types of climate instead of arguing on how many degrees we are going to warm or cool?  How to turn CO2 into carbon products that might be useful or just benign storage in a way that is scale-able and cheap?  Less about control, less about taking from the people in taxes, and more/virtually all about solutions.

Thanks to @Dahobbs for the discussion/input today.  I learned some from him and from my google searches inspired by his knowledge.  (For one that cow population of the world chart is staggering from India/Brazil)

So you think spending the money to relocate every coastal and near coastal city in the world will be cheaper than transitioning away from fossil fuels? And you understand that represents just a fraction of the cost of allowing uncontrolled climate change, right?

[RayDog 682]

There were articles from Australia last week that they added a certain type of seaweed to the diet of cattle that kills the microbes that make the methane. Cattle actual like the seaweed too.

I did not see anything about how the seaweed effects the taste of the beef. Australian beef often tastes terrible. I don't know why but I suspect it is something they eat down there.

[WhatTheBuck 28935]

On August 30, 2019 at 9:30 PM, RayDog said:

There were articles from Australia last week that they added a certain type of seaweed to the diet of cattle that kills the microbes that make the methane. Cattle actual like the seaweed too.

I did not see anything about how the seaweed effects the taste of the beef. Australian beef often tastes terrible. I don't know why but I suspect it is something they eat down there.

Said with all the authority of an anonymous internet poster who cites no sources. 

[Hornius Emeritus 12807]

18 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Said with all the authority of an anonymous internet poster who cites no sources. 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-15/seaweed-for-cows-could-be-mass-farmed-reduce-methane/11414724

[WhatTheBuck 28935]

36 minutes ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-15/seaweed-for-cows-could-be-mass-farmed-reduce-methane/11414724

I didn't see anything about how it affects the taste of the beef, either. Maybe that's because the previous study they cite that claims to reduce methane production by 99% was performed with artificial rumens. 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-19/environmental-concerns-cows-eating-seaweed/7946630

I see they were planning studies on actual cattle but no results are cited. Nothing that says the cows enjoy it. The focus of the article you linked was the scarcity of the seaweed in the wild and research into ways to farm it. 

I also don't see anything about Australian beef tasting "terrible." I've never had it as far as I know but I've never heard that before. "Terrible?" Really? I doubt that. 

[RayDog 682]

2 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Said with all the authority of an anonymous internet poster who cites no sources. 

Said one seriously lazy poster.

[EMAWesome 101]

On 7/24/2019 at 4:13 PM, bolverk said:

A couple new studies have come out providing yet further confirmation:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/jul/24/scientific-consensus-on-humans-causing-global-warming-passes-99

As I'm making this post, it's just after 11pm in Paris and the temperature is still 92 degrees. Tomorrow, the forecast high is 108.

Yeah, I know this is a four year old article.  Point still stands.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#75a08c203f9f

 

If you've ever expressed the least bit of skepticism about environmentalist calls for making the vast majority of fossil fuel use illegal, you've probably heard the smug response: “97% of climate scientists agree with climate change” — which always carries the implication: Who are you to challenge them?

The answer is: you are a thinking, independent individual--and you don’t go by polls, let alone second-hand accounts of polls; you go by facts, logic and explanation.

Here are two questions to ask anyone who pulls the 97% trick.

1. What exactly do the climate scientists agree on?

Usually, the person will have a very vague answer like "climate change is real."

Which raises the question: What is that supposed to mean? That climate changes? That we have some impact? That we have a large impact? That we have a catastrophically large impact? That we have such a catastrophic impact that we shouldn't use fossil fuels?

What you'll find is that people don't want to define what 97% agree on--because there is nothing remotely in the literature saying 97% agree we should ban most fossil fuel use.

It’s likely that 97% of people making the 97% claim have absolutely no idea where that number comes from.

If you look at the literature, the specific meaning of the 97% claim is: 97 percent of climate scientists agree that there is a global warming trend and that human beings are the main cause--that is, that we are over 50% responsible. The warming is a whopping 0.8 degrees over the past 150 years, a warming that has tapered off to essentially nothing in the last decade and a half.

Sources: Met Office Hadley Centre HadCRUT4 dataset; Etheridge et al. (1998); Keeling et al. (2001); MacFarling Meure et al. (2006); Merged Ice-Core Record Data, Scripps Institution of Oceanography

Even if 97% of climate scientists agreed with this, and even if they were right, it in no way, shape, or form would imply that we should restrict fossil fuels--which are crucial to the livelihood of billions.

 

Sources: Boden, Marland, Andres (2010); Bolt and van Zanden (2013); World Bank, World Development Indicators (WDI) Online Data, April 2014

Because the actual 97% claim doesn’t even remotely justify their policies, catastrophists like President Obama and John Kerry take what we could generously call creative liberties in repeating this claim.

On his Twitter account, President Obama tweets: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” Not only does Obama sloppily equate “scientists” with “climate scientists,” but more importantly he added “dangerous” to the 97% claim, which is not there in the literature.

This is called the fallacy of equivocation: using the same term (“97 percent”) in two different ways to manipulate people.

John Kerry pulled the same stunt when trying to tell the underdeveloped world that it should use fewer fossil fuels:

"And let there be no doubt in anybody’s mind that the science is absolutely certain. . . 97 percent of climate scientists have confirmed that climate change is happening and that human activity is responsible. . . . . they agree that, if we continue to go down the same path that we are going down today, the world as we know it will change—and it will change dramatically for the worse."

In Kerry’s mind, 97% of climate scientists said whatever Kerry wants them to have said.

Bottom line: What the 97% of climate scientists allegedly agree on is very mild and in no way justifies restricting the energy that billions need.

But it gets even worse. Because it turns out that 97% didn’t even say that.

Which brings us to the next question:

2. How do we know the 97% agree?

To elaborate, how was that proven?

Almost no one who refers to the 97% has any idea, but the basic way it works is that a researcher reviews a lot of scholarly papers and classifies them by how many agree with a certain position.

Unfortunately, in the case of 97% of climate scientists agreeing that human beings are the main cause of warming, the researchers have engaged in egregious misconduct.

One of the main papers behind the 97 percent claim is authored by John Cook, who runs the popular website SkepticalScience.com, a virtual encyclopedia of arguments trying to defend predictions of catastrophic climate change from all challenges.

Here is Cook’s summary of his paper: “Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97 percent [of papers he surveyed] endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.”

This is a fairly clear statement—97 percent of the papers surveyed endorsed the view that man-made greenhouse gases were the main cause—main in common usage meaning more than 50 percent.

But even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming.

Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.

The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:

“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”

—Dr. Richard Tol

“That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .”

—Dr. Craig Idso

“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”

—Dr. Nir Shaviv

“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .”

—Dr. Nicola Scafetta

Think about how many times you hear that 97 percent or some similar figure thrown around. It’s based on crude manipulation propagated by people whose ideological agenda it serves. It is a license to intimidate.

It’s time to revoke that license.

[bolverk 30361]

31 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

Yeah, I know this is a four year old article.  Point still stands.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#75a08c203f9f

 

 

 

You're quoting an op/ed from a professional hack who founded an industry-supported for-profit "think-tank" whose sole purpose is to deny climate change and promote fossil fuels. That guy's scientific background? Philosophy.

The only point you've made with this post is that you're absolutely desperate to find a credible source to support your wrongheaded opinion.

 

 

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

One problem I have with many climate change deniers is the short term thinking. Regardless of whether climate change is being exacerbated by man or being accelerated for other reasons, there seems to be this rather blase acceptance of "if anything happens, science will figure it out" or "we will simply grow certain crops/food in other places." Agriculture doesn't always work that fast or that easy. I have also had folks say to me, "well, China isn't doing anything about it so why should we?" Actually, China (who mainly worries about China) is pumping a lot of money into their science infrastructure (almost $10 billion over twice as much as the US) and a lot of it is agricultural. What do we do? Practically dismantle the USDA. There is a reason that many doctoral students at US universities are no longer from China and it has less to do with Trump policy than you might think. They are staying there because the dollars and science are there.

[GSU&UT 1799]

2 hours ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

One problem I have with many climate change deniers is the short term thinking. Regardless of whether climate change is being exacerbated by man or being accelerated for other reasons, there seems to be this rather blase acceptance of "if anything happens, science will figure it out" or "we will simply grow certain crops/food in other places." Agriculture doesn't always work that fast or that easy. I have also had folks say to me, "well, China isn't doing anything about it so why should we?" Actually, China (who mainly worries about China) is pumping a lot of money into their science infrastructure (almost $10 billion over twice as much as the US) and a lot of it is agricultural. What do we do? Practically dismantle the USDA. There is a reason that many doctoral students at US universities are no longer from China and it has less to do with Trump policy than you might think. They are staying there because the dollars and science are there.

Yep, THAT argument in particular is insane to me. China is aggressively trying to build out rail and move to renewable energy because they understand exactly how fucked humanity is in the next 50 to 100 years. You can't point the finger at China anymore and I'll be India will be doing the same.

[hpslugga 4097]

7 hours ago, bolverk said:

You're quoting an op/ed from a professional hack who founded an industry-supported for-profit "think-tank" whose sole purpose is to deny climate change and promote fossil fuels. That guy's scientific background? Philosophy.

The only point you've made with this post is that you're absolutely desperate to find a credible source to support your wrongheaded opinion.

 

 

Seriously, there’s a reason that denialists have never even come close to surviving peer review with all of the bewildering inanities they spew forth. As you imply, their game is shock jocking for profit. That has jack shit to do with science.

[WhatTheBuck 28935]

21 hours ago, RayDog said:

Said one seriously lazy poster.

That falls into "every accusation is a confession" territory. 

You should've replied with an apology. Maybe "someone on the internet said so" meets your minimum standard for belief. It doesn't meet mine. If you ever see me make a claim like yours without citing a source then you can call me lazy. Or, someone else can. You wouldn't have room to speak. 

That which is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence. It's not my job to research every unsourced claim I see on the net. It's basic netiquette and responsible scholarship to provide sources. especially in a thread devoted to a subject of science. If you don't follow that standard then I can only assume that you're likely to be often misinformed. 

Edited September 3, 2019 by WhatTheBuck

[RayDog 682]

A 30 second google search would find dozens of articles based on the research going on at USC Australia going back to 2014. For anyone paying attention to climate science this was already public knowledge not requiring citation. 

For example I do not normally cite that Einstein derived E=mc^2. I do cite when I add that Poincare derived it 5 years earlier since few people are aware of that.

Poincaré H., (1900) "La Théorie de Lorentz et le Principe de Réaction," Arch. Néerland. Sci. Ex. Nat. (2) 252–27830.

[Hornius Emeritus 12807]

5 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

 

You should've replied with an apology. Maybe "someone on the internet said so" meets your minimum standard for belief. It doesn't meet mine.

Good God, WhattheBuck, RayDog  said:

"There were articles from Australia last week that they added a certain type of seaweed to the diet of cattle that kills the microbes that make the methane. Cattle actual like the seaweed too."

That's a true statement. There WERE articles from Australia last week that they added a certain type of seaweed to the diet of cattle that kills the microbes that make the methane.  A 3 second google search using keywords Australia + seaweed + cattle + methane brought up dozens of such articles:

https://www.google.com/search?as_q=Australia+methane+cattle+seaweed&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=&as_occt=any&safe=images&as_filetype=&as_rights=


RayDog was entirely 100% correct in his assertion. 

Further, we make assertions like this ( "I read blah blah blah") without providing the evidence that we read blah blah blah EVERY DAY on this board.  This seems like a really random time for you to start demanding the the person who said he read something provide evidence that he actually read it, especially when all it takes is a 3-second Google search for you to understand that the articles Raydog claimed to have read are actually out there. 

What a stupid hill for you to die on.





 

Edited September 3, 2019 by Hornius Emeritus

[WhatTheBuck 28935]

8 hours ago, RayDog said:

A 30 second google search would find dozens of articles based on the research going on at USC

Then do the search and provide your sources. That you don't get it makes you look bad. And lazy as fuck. 

[WhatTheBuck 28935]

3 hours ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

Good God, WhattheBuck, RayDog  said:

"There were articles from Australia last week that they added a certain type of seaweed to the diet of cattle that kills the microbes that make the methane. Cattle actual like the seaweed too."

That's a true statement. There WERE articles from Australia last week that they added a certain type of seaweed to the diet of cattle that kills the microbes that make the methane.  A 3 second google search using keywords Australia + seaweed + cattle + methane brought up dozens of such articles:

https://www.google.com/search?as_q=Australia+methane+cattle+seaweed&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=&as_occt=any&safe=images&as_filetype=&as_rights=


RayDog was entirely 100% correct in his assertion. 

Further, we make assertions like this ( "I read blah blah blah") without providing the evidence that we read blah blah blah EVERY DAY on this board.  This seems like a really random time for you to start demanding the the person who said he read something provide evidence that he actually read it, especially when all it takes is a 3-second Google search for you to understand that the articles Raydog claimed to have read are actually out there. 

What a stupid hill for you to die on.

Give the page a little more time to load and you can post a proper link so it won't be apparent that you were googling a source just now.

Where's the link to the results of the study with actual cattle that says they love eating the seaweed? What you posted before didn't lead to any answers on that front. I'm not sure why you're defending the poster who's too lazy to post even one link to the multiple articles he claims he's read. Sorry, I don't respect that. I invite you to follow every post I ever make and be ready to pounce on me if I ever do the same thing. 

Edited September 3, 2019 by WhatTheBuck

[Hornius Emeritus 12807]

11 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Give the page a little more time to load and you can post a proper link so it won't be apparent that you were googling a source just now.

Where's the link to the results of the study with actual cattle that says they love eating the seaweed? 

 

1) I was googling a source just then and I WANTED it to be apparent

2) The very first article claims that the cows like the seaweed and "wander down to the beach to have a bit of a nibble."  


Bonus:  UC-Davis showed an 80% reduction in emissions from sheep.



 

[Biff Tannen 46190]

[52-80 19377]

i ate some seaweed salad and it didnt seem to do shit for my farting habits

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20945]

Jesus, quit being  a pedantic dickhead, Whatthebuck. 

 

 

[4th&Five 42015]

 

[mop 18]

what a thread.

 

the thread i jumped on back in like 2008 or something started with a claim that the Arctic would be ice free by the summer of 2012.  this didn't happen. in fact, while 2012 was left with something like 4,000,000 square kilometers of sea ice, it was a relatively low ice year.  it is now 2019....and we are having a year roughly the same as 2012.  consider that 4 million square kilometers is about 2.5 times the size of Alaska. so the prediction was an ice-free arctic by 2012.  7 years later we have an area 250% the size of Alaska with ice.

[elfenix 34759]

seems like there's a clear trend here, but i dunno.

 

[Jhawkmvp 1514]

In South Korea, I have eaten Australian and American beef (it is marked on all the beef for sale where it is from). South Korean as well. There is no difference in the taste of the Australian and American beef. The South Korean beef is better, probably due to being fresher than the imported beef, but it costs twice as much as well.

[RayDog 682]

2 hours ago, Jhawkmvp said:

In South Korea, I have eaten Australian and American beef (it is marked on all the beef for sale where it is from). South Korean as well. There is no difference in the taste of the Australian and American beef. The South Korean beef is better, probably due to being fresher than the imported beef, but it costs twice as much as well.

I live in the Philippines and every American here will tell you Australian beef has a funny taste and sometimes tastes really bad. Filipino beef is not great either.

The Aussies (and Brits) like to smother their steaks in brown sauce, so many of them have no taste.